 Felly, we will move on now to the next item of business, which is a statement by Michael Russell on preparations for EU exit. The Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Fair Work will take questions at the end of his statement, so if any member wishes to ask a question, I would encourage them to press their request to speak buttons as soon as possible. Anna-Colin Russell On 11 September 1997, 21 years ago, to the very day, the people of Scotland voted in a referendum to re-establish the Scottish Parliament. That referendum was a recognition of the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs to quote the claim of right. Instead of celebrating on this 21st birthday of devolution, we are instead witnessing the sovereign right being treated with contempt as we face the most crucial and damaging change to our lives and prospects that any of us here will have known. Despite the overwhelming vote in Scotland to remain in the EU, in less than seven months' time, the UK Government intends to take Scotland and the rest of the UK out of the EU. It intends to do so despite the vote of the people of Scotland against that step. It intends to do so despite the views of this Parliament. It intends to do so despite the fact that it lacks any workable plan and it does not know what the consequences will be thereafter. There is a vanishingly short window, some 198 days now, for agreement on the terms of withdrawal. In addition, discussions on the shape of a political declaration about a framework for future relationships are deadlocked by a UK Government unable to move for fear of destabilising the Conservative Party. Of course, Brexit is, in reality, only the latest round in a 40-year-long civil war within the Conservative Party about Europe. The latest battlefield in that war is the so-called checkers agreement. The EU has been clear that proposals on customs and trade in goods are not acceptable. If the Prime Minister cannot soften her proposals—and she has at least 80 of her own MPs prepared to die in the political ditch because, as far as they are concerned, the checker's plan is too soft—then the risk of exiting in March with no agreement on the terms of exit and no more than a commitment to further negotiations is very real. There are some in the chamber who are trying to tell us that we have to choose between these warring factions, but that is a false choice. Let me make that absolutely clear at the outset. No deal is impossible and unthinkable. The checker's deal is impractical and unworkable. A Brexit with next-to-no detail about future relationship, a so-called blind Brexit, would be completely unacceptable, so we must find something better. What a mess the Tories have made of it. They should be hanging their heads in silent shame in this chamber this afternoon. The Scottish Government has, however, always made a distinction between the politics of Brexit and the absolute necessity of doing everything that we can to ensure no legislative cliff edge. We are committed solidly and completely to taking every action to ensure as little damage to Scotland as possible. The publication in August of the first batch of no-deal technical notices laid bare not just the appalling irresponsibility of all those involved, but also illustrated the stark reality of what a no-deal would mean for Scottish businesses and citizens. Reading those notices, I was struck again and again that there is a simple solution that would avoid all this damage staying in the European Union. That should still be our aim, but we should also be prepared to compromise if others will compromise. Accordingly, we will continue to make the case vigorously for membership of the European Single Market and the Customs Union and to set out the implications of other options and the impact they would have on Scotland's future. We will also regrettably have to work as hard as we can to prepare for a no-deal should one occur. Presiding Officer, I made a statement in June where I advised that the Scottish Government was intensifying its preparations for all exit possibilities in order to support the Scottish economy in our businesses, people and public services in what are and will continue to be very uncertain times. In contrast, just like in the conduct of its negotiations, the UK Government's readiness preparations have been haphazard, contradictory and have massively increased the uncertainty. I confirm nonetheless that the Scottish Government intends to take a coherent, consistent and collaborative approach to making preparations for EU exit. We will be straight with people and I intend to communicate what the Scottish Government is doing to help Scotland. Let me start with the details of our preparations in parallel with the UK Government's arrangements. In June, I said that I would return to Parliament with more details on how we will legislate to deliver a functioning statute book. That is an unwelcome responsibility, but it is one that we will face up to. We must act just in case we find ourselves in the worst of circumstances. This chamber will understand that this is a significant undertaking. The deficiencies in our statute book that have already been identified, the areas where change must be made, are many and varied. We need to correct hundreds of pieces of legislation not to mere handful, but we have no choice. As parliamentarians, we will have a great deal of heavy legislative lifting to do over the next few months. We have always said that the best way to go about this task would be by co-operation and co-ordination between the Governments of these islands, as long as that co-operation could take place in a way that respected the principles of devolution and gave this Parliament its proper role in the process. Accordingly, where the policy outcome being sought is consistent across Governments, we will seek to agree approaches to the fixing regulations that are required. Of course, whether they are not, we will pursue our own policies that will require us to bring forward our own secondary legislation. Even with that co-operation, the number of individual items for this Parliament to consider may be between 100 and 200 additional instruments. That is a heavy burden. It could be heavier still if Westminster is not willing to co-operate sensibly. I have written today or I am writing today to the conveners of the Constitution and Delegated Powers committees to set out the Government's approach, a degree of protocol between Government and Parliament that will ensure that this Parliament is able to scrutinise effectively the items in question and the whole process. This is not about where the devolved competencies will fall after EU exit. This is not about section 12 of the EU withdrawal act, which this Parliament has overwhelmingly rejected and which this Government will have nothing to do with. This is not even about legislative consent motions. This is about responsibly discharging, as best we can, our duty to ensure a functioning, devolved statute book. Let me turn to some other associated issues. In writing to UK suppliers of over 8,000 medicines, asking them to stockpile up to six weeks of supplies, the Secretary of State for Health exposed the scale and complexity of the problems that were created by a no-deal Brexit. Nonetheless, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and the Chief Medical Officer is engaged in those discussions and will ensure the full involvement of Scotland in that system. We are also constantly reviewing our planning for Brexit more generally and, after the next two tranches of technical notices are issued, we will consider publishing our own supplementary guidance if we feel that it can be useful and if it does not add to the momentum around a no-deal, which could be an unforeseen outcome. We are, of course, engaged in civil contingencies planning around any impacts that may have an immediate and direct effect on citizens. In the event of a hard Brexit or no deal, it is important to realise that there may be some risks that will simply not be in the hands of the Scottish Government to mitigate. If there are customs delays at the border between the UK and the EU, food imports and exports could be delayed and disrupted. Exporters of perishable foods from Scotland, for example, could find their products take longer to get to market or are unable to get there at all and will cost more. In the fight against crime, we stand to lose access to the expertise built up in Europol. That is used to identify, track and disrupt some of the most dangerous cross-border criminal activity. The ability of Police Scotland to work with law enforcement colleagues from across the EU to tackle that can be vital. If free movement of EU nationals and mutual recognition of professional qualifications has curtailed, that would have serious consequences for the recruitment and retention of public sector workers across Scotland. The Scottish Government is aligning existing financial and staff resources towards those areas with specific EU exit-related demands and is ensuring that we have the right people in the right places to respond. We have created a new directorate for international trade and investment, strengthened our presence in Brussels, London, Dublin, Berlin and Paris to ensure that Scotland's voice is heard in Europe. Every directorate of the Scottish Government is engaged in planning for EU exit. The Scottish Government will receive £37.3 million of consequentials allocated in 2018-19. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Economy and Fair Work has made initial allocations of funding to support vital activities that today total 26.6 million resource and 0.5 million capital. We are prioritising areas that are heavily impacted by Brexit, such as agriculture and the rural economy. We are also using those funds to ensure that we have the skilled staff in place to resource the delivery of a function-devolved statute book. It is, of course, unacceptable that Scotland's public finances should suffer detriment as a result of Brexit, and we will continue to press the UK Government to ensure that the financial implications of EU exit and the need for appropriate future funding arrangements for Scotland are fully considered. Presiding Officer, preparing for an orderly Brexit has been and will be a major challenge in itself. That displacement of skills and resources will be mirrored across Scotland's businesses and public services. How much worse is it to be forced to also address the prospect of a no-deal Brexit threatening disruption on an unprecedented scale in peacetime? However, carefully we prepare for a no-deal scenario, it will still result in chaos. Even the UK Government's own no-deal plans will require a plethora of agreements with the EU in order to work effectively. In a situation in which negotiations have broken down, we have to ask how plausible that is. I will also keep Parliament updated on preparations and make a further statement in due course. Presiding Officer, a no-deal is not inevitable, but the checker's agreement is not deliverable and a blind Brexit is not acceptable, so not leaving would be best. The only acceptable alternative thereafter is continued membership of the single market and customs union, which is essential for our economy, our society and the people of Scotland. The Scottish Government will continue to make that case while fulfilling our duty of protecting Scotland as best we can from the threats of a Brexit—any Brexit—that we cannot completely ameliorate, that we do not want and that we did not vote for. I remind members who have not done so but who wish to ask a question to press their request to speak buttons now. I call on Adam Tomkins. I thank the minister for early sight of his statement. It is important that politicians of all parties put their shoulder to the wheel and secure something as close to the checker's agreement as possible. If we step away from that, it will be detrimental to the United Kingdom and to Scotland. Not my words, Presiding Officer, but those just yesterday of NFU Scotland. When the National Farmers Union is right, why does not the minister agree? What we need from Scottish ministers is not more empty posturing on Brexit, which is all that we were just treated to from Mike Russell, but constructive engagement in the work of co-operating with the UK Government to secure the best possible Brexit deal for Scotland and for all of the UK. On one level, Presiding Officer, you do have to feel sorry for Mike Russell. Desperate to be the herald of doom, here he is today contradicted over and again by Michel Barnier himself no less. The EU's chief negotiator said only yesterday that it is perfectly possible to reach a deal on Brexit within the next six to eight weeks. This is good news, Presiding Officer, but the SNP don't want to hear it. Everything they say about Brexit is negative. The only thing being stockpiled here is ministerial grievance and tired political cliché. Yet, if the outcome is so gloomy, why is the ICA reporting only today that business confidence in the economy is so high? Let's do as NFU Scotland and countless others have rightly said. Let's get behind-checkers, let's support the UK Government in its negotiations with the EU, let's drop the nationalist scaremongering, let's seize the opportunities for economic growth that Brexit presents and let's get on with the job of securing the best possible Brexit deal for Scotland. Presiding Officer, I have to echo the words of Brian Taylor on radio this morning who commended the brass neck of the Tories, and we've just heard more of that brass neck today in a party that is literally tearing itself apart over Brexit. All that Adam Tomkins is able to do is to try and create a smokescreen to avoid the chaos that lies ahead, but let me, Presiding Officer, quote somebody else. Let me quote somebody who said on 28 June in this Parliament, to my mind, leave should mean that we retain full access to the EU's single market, who said that leaving the EU's political institutions does not mean that we have to leave the EU's single market for there are several countries, including Norway, that have just such an arrangement. That person was Adam Tomkins. Now the reality is, and indeed, oh well indeed, let me quote somebody else, retaining our place is the 30th of June. Retaining our place in the single market should be the overriding priority. That was Ruth Davidson. The reality is that the only acceptable alternative, and it's not as good to staying in the EU, is staying in the single market in the customs union. That, unfortunately, is what Adam Tomkins and Ruth Davidson and everybody else knew two years ago. The requirements of the Tory party to have slavish loyalty to their leader, apart, of course, from Boris—depends on who the leader is—apart from Boris, Rhys-Mogg, Redwood and all the others. That requirement is putting Adam Tomkins in a ludicrous position, and the more he shouts, the more ludicrous it becomes. Thanks, Presiding Officer, and I can thank the cabinet secretary for the not-so-early sight of his statement today, but we won't dwell on that. It's interesting that Tee refers to the claim of right at the beginning of his statement—a claim, of course, that his party failed to sign. As Brexit day edges ever closer, businesses, the fishing industry, farmers, workers and our citizens are ever more anxious. They see the UK Government in complete disarray, cabinet resignations threats, counter threats. A governing party has seen out the last months of a war over Europe that has lasted almost 50 years. We see the Prime Minister dangling by her fingertips as Davis, Rhys-Mogg and the odious Johnson prize her fingers from the cliff with a sledgehammer. The already sunk checkers plan is all she has to keep her afloat. A no-deal Brexit would be a disaster for our people, our public services and our businesses, and we oppose the cobbled-together checkers plan. However, today, we are scrutinising the Scottish Government's preparations. We welcome emergency planning in relation to the NHS and medicines, but we have serious concerns about the lack of detail in other sectors. In this statement, we see a lot of headings and hear plenty of rhetoric, but little in the way of actual practical detail on how the Scottish Government intends providing confidence to businesses, exporters to workers, farmers, the fishing industry, environmentalists and consumers. They need more than strong rhetoric but vague detail. Will the cabinet secretary set out in detail in space what exact progress has been made in each sector so that we can properly scrutinise the Scottish Government's proposals? Before the cabinet secretary replies, can I just encourage all members to answer and ask their questions? Please refer—if referring to any parliamentarian or any member of the public for the matter, use their full name, address them correctly and politely and do not disparage them. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Mr Finlay has available to him all the detail of the UK documents as they are published. We scarce to get much more detail on that ourselves, except the odd chance to fact or legally check them. Those are the core documents in this matter. I have indicated to him that we will publish additional material as we regard necessary. I have also indicated to him that we will make it clear that our plans are available. However, it is quite important—in fact, it is very important—that we do two things here. One is that we do not accept the inevitability of a no deal and do not do anything to talk that up. The second one is that we accept where the responsibility for this lies and always say that there is an alternative. Because there is an alternative, both to no deal or the checkers agreement, which will not stick, or to the blind Brexit, which appears to be where things are going, the alternative is either to stay in the EU, which is the best option, and that is what Scotland voted for, or to back the single market and the customs union. Indeed, if the Labour Party were to back that, then we would make even more progress with that campaign than we have already done. Patrick Harvie, to be followed by Willie Rennie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would also urge the Scottish Government to consider publishing more information, not just supplementary guidance, if it feels that is necessary, but reassuring information for members of the public to know that the potential chaos of a no deal Brexit is being addressed and that preparations are being made in detail. I would like to ask about the continuity bill, because, as the minister knows, he has our support in defending that bill against the attack by the UK Government in the courts. However, if he is unsuccessful in that, if the UK Government is successful in attacking that legislation, will he commit to ensuring that the stronger aspects of that legislation, which are better as a result of cross-party efforts to achieve social and environmental protections and stronger democratic scrutiny, those aspects will be reintroduced if necessary, that we will not lose out on that higher level of protection and democratic scrutiny if the UK Government has its way in the courts. Can I make two points in response to that question? First, on reassurance, my statement has made it clear that we will and continue to do everything that we can to ensure that Scotland is protected. However, I have also made it clear, and it is essential that we do that, that we cannot mitigate every outcome of a no deal. For two reasons. One is that we do not know what those outcomes would be, and secondly, a no deal is by definition disastrous. We have made that clear, so I would love to give even more reassurance, but we have to be realistic, as I have indicated. There are things that cannot be mitigated against, and I have indicated what some of those would be. On the continuity bill, I am entirely in agreement with the member. The attack by the UK Government was most unwelcome, but that having been the case, we have defended ourselves vigorously. Depending on the outcome, of course, we will consider how we will bring to this chamber the ways in which we can undertake the actions that we wish to undertake. I do hope that that bill is able to move forward and have royal assent. That would be the right thing to happen. Where that to happen, it is clear that we would move forward to it. If that is not the case, then of course I will consider very closely what we could do, and I hope to involve the other parties in this chamber in that, at least those who are not attacking the bill. Willie Rennie I thank the Minister for an advanced copy of the statement. I agree with him when he talks about the UK Government's false choice between the options that are being presented, between the economic damage and massive surrender of democracy of the checkers plan, and the massive economic and financial consequences of no deal. For ages, the minister has said that he is open to the British people having the final say on the Brexit deal. Now there are less than 200 days left. Has he made his mind up yet? The support is growing across the spectrum, including from the trade union congress yesterday and supporters from the Conservative benches and the Labour benches. Is he going to get off the fence? Will he back the people's vote? I have made it clear from the beginning that I am not and the Scottish Government is not opposed to this, but we have also posed some questions. I think that Mr Rennie, if he is serious about engaging the Government in that issue, needs to help us to answer the questions. I am open to him helping us to answer those questions. Perhaps he could get his friends in the movement for a people's vote to help to answer those questions too, none of which were answered in any way by a demonstration outside this Parliament during August, if it seemed to me that that demonstration ignored those questions. Let me just make it clear what the core question is. The people of Scotland have already voted to remain in the EU. They voted decisively on 23 June 2016. What would happen in the circumstances in which there was another vote? They made that clear, and yet the people of the rest of the UK did not. That question requires to be answered. Now, there can be answers to it. I am happy to sit down and have those answers, but ignoring that question and ignoring what the people of Scotland did on 23 June will not produce an answer, so there is the question for Mr Rennie. Mr Rennie wants to come and talk to me about that to answer that question. I am delighted to speak to him about it. I make that offer now, but we do require to have that question not hidden away, not ignored, but on the table and answered. There are 10 more members who still wish to ask questions. Again, I would plead for brevity. We will get through them all. Joan McAlpine, to be followed by Murdo Fraser. In a moment of candor recently, Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, told the website the truth trade that we must not succumb to, quotes, irrational positivity about Brexit and that, quotes, everything will not be wonderful just because we are leaving the European Union. That will not come as any surprise to the cabinet secretary or many other members of this chamber, but does he agree that this admission from a zealous Brexit here comes far too late in the day and that the best preparation and protection for us is for the UK to agree to keep us in the single market and the customs union? Absolutely. Brexit is not a reason to be cheerful, I have to say, quite the opposite. The reality of this situation is that the campaign was fought on a false prospectus. We now know that it was a campaign that also appears to have had extreme irregularities in both its organisation and financing. It is extraordinary to me that those people who are opposed leaving, including Professor Tomkins, are now the most slavish supporters of it. I think that that shows a distinct lack of political principle just as Dr Fox does. Murdo Fraser, to be followed by Bruce Crawford. Thank you, Presiding Officer. When we come to a vote in the House of Commons and give members of Parliament a choice between the checkers deal or no deal, what side will SNP MPs be on? It does not seem to me that Professor Fraser is a very keen student of these matters, because it seems to many of us that that is not likely to be the outcome at all. What is much more likely to be the outcome is, for example, a choice between a blind Brexit, a very vague high-level agreement and a no-Brexit at all. However, I have made it very clear in my statement—indeed, Mr Fraser should have listened to my statement—that a checker's agreement, which is no agreement because it cannot be agreed in its present form and the Prime Minister cannot move from it for fear of resmog at all, a no deal from the people who have no connection with reality at all, as far as I can see, and a blind Brexit are all unacceptable options. There are two acceptable options, one of which is not to leave, and indeed that is the best option. The second one is to have as close an alignment as possible, and that is through the single market and the customs union. I am not going to be pushed to choose sides in the Tory civil war. I want the Tory civil war to stop because we are all collateral damage presently. Bruce Crawford, to be followed by James Kelly. Bruce Crawford. Thank you, Presiding Officer. All across this country, people day in and day out are becoming more and more deeply concerned and alarmed about whether there will be an appropriate Brexit deal. Can the cabinet secretary therefore outline what confidence he has in the UK Government reaching a deal based on the Prime Minister's so-called checker's plan? Does he agree with me that it is high time that the Tories halted their hugely damaging infighting? For once, just for once, put the interests of the country first. It is absolutely... I am grateful to Mr Crawford for that question, because it is absolutely clear, and has been clear for some time, that the checker's plan, as it is, cannot produce a solution. The checker's plan would have to be very substantially changed to produce a solution. That is why officials described the plan as evolving, but the Prime Minister describes it as settled. She describes it as settled because she is in a position that the more she moves away inch by inch from the checker's plan to anything that could get a deal, the more trouble she will have with the Conservative Party. Not the Conservative Party in this chamber, which is utterly spineless, but the Conservative Party that hates the everyday area of change. In those circumstances, we have a very difficult problem to face. The way to face that problem is to be absolutely clear, as I have said, that the false choice, the false dichotomy presented to us time and again by the Tories, trying to wriggle out, wriggle out of the problems that they have, is not a choice at all. We should be clear about what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. The EU does not find checkers acceptable. Nobody would find no deal acceptable, and the blind Brexit is a pig in a poke. James Kelly, to be followed by Annabelle Ewing. In light of the numerous references in the statement to the threat to public services, can I ask the cabinet secretary what assessment has been done in relation to the 2019-20 budget of the impact of Brexit on the funding of public services? I think that he will find that when the cabinet secretary comes to present the budget, he will be in a position to make it absolutely clear, as he should, what the effect of Brexit has been. There are issues around consequentials, and I am sure that Mr Kelly, as a member of the finance committee, will have a chance to question that very closely at the time. Annabelle Ewing, to be followed by Maurice Golden. Given that the Scottish Government is now faced with the prospect of seeking to prepare for a no-deal Brexit, because the Conservative Party has been too busy fighting among themselves, is it not the case, cabinet secretary, that the UK Tory Government is guilty of a total dereliction of duty to the citizens of Scotland and the rest of the UK? That is absolutely true, and one would have thought that the Scottish Conservative Party would recognise that and endeavour to do something about it by showing themselves as listening to Scotland. Instead, they are simply making the situation worse by their slave adherence to the checkers agreement and to the Prime Minister, neither of which are going to last terribly long. Maurice Golden, to be followed by Gillian Martin. Given that the cabinet secretary is so concerned with constitutional uncertainty, will he agree to take indyref 2 off the table? Cabinet secretary. Gosh, it is almost like a machine is writing these questions. The situation is that, at some stage, the people of Scotland are going to have to make a choice. They are going to have to make a choice between the Brexit that is being presented, whatever Brexit is presented by his colleagues south of the border, and the normal independent future. Of course, the reality is that, during the independence referendum in 2014, colleagues of Mr Golden and, indeed, people on the Labour Party benches and even on the Liberal benches went around saying that if you were independent, you could not be in the EU. As that is exactly the opposite has happened, then I commend to Mr Golden what I was talking about earlier on, a period of silence. Gillian Martin. Cabinet secretary has made mention in the statement of some of the sectors that we know will be extremely negatively impacted by the 20-led hard Brexit, should it happen. But there is more bad news by the day, news that cannot be dismissed as scaremongering. This week, from the oil and gas sector, can I ask the cabinet secretary what his response is to today's oil and gas report? I'll oil and gas UK report, which concludes that a hard Brexit could lead to platforms being shut down because of challenges in recruiting staff from the EU. Cabinet secretary. One of the most astonishing aspects of this whole issue is the way in which, day after day, there is evidence from those who know what they are talking about about the damaging effects of Brexit, yet it is completely ignored by the Tory party and completely ignored by the prime minister and completely ignored by the Conservatives in this chamber. I saw that report today and it is quite clear that there is huge concern, particularly about the flow of labour and that there is a need for labour. The UK Government's response was to say that labour would still be available until the end of 2020. That is no comfort at all. This is an industry that does long-term planning. It is like last week's so-called concession on seasonal workers. The numbers were minuscule compared to what is required. I have to say that somebody earlier talked about a dereliction of duty. The dereliction of duty to key Scottish industries from the Tories over Brexit is absolutely mind-boggling. It is also incredibly damaging. Pauline McNeill. Can I press the cabinet secretary for some detail on the directive for international trade and investment mentioned in the statement? Can the cabinet secretary outline whether there will be offices in London, Dublin, Berlin and Paris when they will be established and what will the relationship be with the UK trade offices? That is an important question. There are already offices in London, Dublin, Berlin and Paris. It is just about to open. I was in Paris two weeks ago speaking at a large business conference, and I was talking to the person who will be running that office. Those are in place. They work through Scottish Development International, usually, and Scottish Enterprise. There are close relationships between those bodies in the UK where that is appropriate. That has been the case, for example, with the office in Washington and the staff in Beijing. Those have continued to be relationships, but the important thing is to focus on promoting Scotland and making Scotland's voice heard. That is taking place. Those offices are crucial to it. I have to say that my experience of them has been very positive indeed. They are out there doing the things that need to be done. Very often, the UK Government is not doing the things that need to be done. Thank you very much. I apologise to those members who did not get the opportunity to ask their questions, but I did allow the topicals to run on somewhat this morning this afternoon. We move on now to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion 13813 in the name of Aileen Campbell on the Social Enterprise World Forum. Again, I invite all members who wish to ask a question on the statement to press their request-to-speak buttons now. We will just take a few seconds for the members and the ministers to change seats.